It would be hard to judge the movie without comparing it with the old one by the title alone, but with all borrowed scenes and lines, I fear this is impossible - and that's bad, because they're putting themselves against something quite brilliant. What I kept thinking while watching is that this is too "literal", meaning they've set up these scary scenes without setting the proper psychological mood for them, making them less than effective in scarying the audience. I missed that. Some of the scenes were really well done visually, but utterly unemotional and therefore, just not not scary.
Where the original centered the parents, this one centers on Griff the boy for no real reason as well as the dad. They changed Tangina from a psychic woman to some dude. While Zelda Rubinstein is hard to replace, changing her to some dude is just wrong. I guess showing older "unattractive" short women is just out completely in this day an age and older unattractive men can just take the stage with their bravado of showing off his scars and blaming the woman for his broken marriage. The big mystery of why the house is haunted is revealed too early and it isn't explained why the former owner left.
Basically it once again that a little boy doing what an adult woman can't and that's just gross.
Also they got rid of all the meaty chunks. That was the best part.
It's here... and it sucks
I still have no idea why they did a remake on Poltergeist and why Hollywood keeps making remakes in the first place. These just no point and it anyone's me that these people think they can top the original but always fail because you can't top the original unless your John Carpenter and you made The Thing then yeah good job you somehow top the original. But I also curious of how this was going to turn, I mean Hollywood must have learned from they mistakes by now by not adding any stupid CG monsters or loud jump scares. After seeing the movie I'm still not impressed.
The only good thing in this movie was Sam Rockwell, Rosemarie DeWitt, and Jared Harris. Those three were the only good actors in the movie and at least tried to give a some what of a good performance, they tried they best and I can give them that. But I still have no idea why they here in the first place, maybe it's money or they got force to do it, I don't know maybe it's just the money and if that's the case these three acted they ass off to get that paycheck.
The movie itself has some creative scares or creepy moments, I like to call it. When I mean some I really do mean some of the scares in the movie, which is kind of surprising that must remakes normally just suck all the way. Gil Kenan directed this movie and he's also the same guy who did Monster House and that movie itself had it's creepy moments and it also involves a possessed house. I think some of the creativity that Gil Kenan had went into this movie.
I've seen many horror remakes that are much much worse then this. At least this one tried a little hard from most remakes, because a lot of horror remakes today are just so freaking lazy and they don't put any effort at all in they movies and it just comes off as crapping on the original.
Now for the problems: There is way way too much CGI in the movie and I do mean Hollywood horror movie cliche bad. There's a scene in this movie where a CGI squirrel jumps out the wardrobe (like a jump scare) and the way it ran around and how it looked just made me put my hands smack down on my face with pure disappointment of what I just saw. And that's not all, these other scenes where it involves CGI with the demon ghost and other object's trying to kill them. People in Hollywood if you see this review (somehow) stop making scary things into CGI crap, it's not scary it just make you look cheap. Go back to old school practical effect's with make-up and hairstyle in horror movies, at least it's actually there and it doesn't look like a crappy looking computer bug.
Every advertisement for this movie has been for the f**king clown. It doesn't really scare me anymore because everywhere I go I see a billboard advertisement and you know what's on there? The clown facing us. I mean everywhere I go I see the damn thing and it's not even creepy anymore, it's just annoying how it's everywhere and how they showing the clown too much. I mean is that the way the film makers behind this movie think that the clown is going to make me run out of my way to see this movie, thank god we got online piracy because I'm paying to this a horror remake and that clown isn't going to fool me, I watched it for free so...HA! Yeah, you can saw it worked as I have seen the movie and reviewing it as I speak, but let's not forget I sawed it online for FREE and didn't pay to see it, that's why it's number 4 on this week box office.
The child actors in the movie are not very good. I know it may seem a bit mean for me saying that the kids in the movie are piss poor actors, but again, let's not forget here that we have seen great performance from child actors in past horror movies so that proves that some children can act in horror movies, but here it seems like the producer's wanted their kids in the movie to make money and get them famous = more money. The little girl in the movie of course plays with the ghost demons and here's the thing in these kind of movies, what's up with these kids not once getting a bit freaked out over this I mean kids will cry or get scared over anything that's not human. The two movies that I think of that did it realistically was in The Babadook and The Conjuring were the kids got pure scared of this thing and not once played with it.
The movie overall doesn't do anything new with it's character's, story or anything really. I bet this remake will be forgotten at the end of the year, unless they do a squeal (which I hope doesn't happening).
Having been to one of the first showings of the original,at 20 years old, this is like a reader's digest (trimmed down & sanitized) version in comparison. Particularly considering the amount of time since and the advancements in cinematic tech... kinda disappointing.
Even if this had been the original, shown over 30 years ago, it still would have been a B flick; and no one would have bothered attempting a remake.
About the only reason I did enjoy this movie, was the cast, as they tried their best to flesh out unidimensional characters in a script that sadly, tries a little bit too hard to pay an homage to the original (and to a couple more films), but that also had a few twists now and then. I'm not comparing at all my experience as a 12 years-old kid watching the original. Back then, an uncle of mine (who passed away some years ago, God keeps his soul) was the manager at our town's largest cinema (a nice 70mm film 2000 seater that has been torn down since), and used to let me watch for free (and most of the times, all by myself) every single new film they got, before it opened, from 1980 up to 1987, when I moved to another city. Now, 1982 was for me a GREAT year: Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan, Blade Runner, Tron, The Thing, E.T, Conan: The Barbarian, Creepshow, The Dark Crystal, Firefox... almost every Saturday opening was a fantastic movie, in every genre. For the original Poltergeist, I was alone in the cinema, scared shitless. For this version... let's say I was checking boxes (while eating my popcorn) regarding how they got this or that from the first one, and the cast made me enjoy the experience. Have we seen way too many movies, that now we have become so cynical, expecting so much at every opening?. I don't know. I'm still missing watching in awe brand new movies on a huge screen all by myself as a kid. Having said that, I'm sure that there are some scenes cut from the theatrical release that I hope will get into the Blu-ray. It's a fine move, and it stands by itself when we cease to compare it.
unlikeable characters in a movie that is a poor remake of a great film that even after 30 plus years still is far more scary and satisfying than this retread
Not a bad movie, but it didnt scare like I hoped it would, or at all... At least its better than other remakes I've seen in past.
I've always felt that overuse of special CGI effects doesn't help make shows better and could instead make the story a lil too exaggerated. This movie proves my point, well sorta. But i definitely prefer the old/original version.
....I'm supposed to believe that house is DOWNSIZING??
FIrst off, I wasn’t a huge fan of the original film either but I've found every single character annoying except for the mother and feel like they cut out so much of the charm in the original to make plot shortcuts with this one. I think one change I did like is how they made the oldest daughter more involved.
Poltergeist, as I feared unnecessary remake that adds nothing, impersonal. strongly agree @blogdecine http://www.blogdecine.com/criticas/poltergeist-insulso-terror-de-diseno
It was poor, both in terms of acting and as a remake.
Remakes of classic horror movies never fail to disappoint. This one sucked harder than a Dyson vacuum
An extra star just because Sam Rockwell is even in it. This movie was unnecessary though even more so since The Conjuring and Insidious borrowed a lot from the original Poltergeist.
As did probably 30 other movies borrow from the original Poltergeist, I am sure. So this movie won’t even come off fresh to people that didn’t see the original.
Kennedi Clements Is cute and looks like a brunette version of the late Heather O’Rourke. Her reactions just aren’t as good though. It’s especially less creepy when she says “their herrrrrre!” She just simply says “their here.”
Lame horror.
'Poltergeist' offers nothing. It may not be an absolutely awful watch, but there's nothing about this that's good unfortunately. The story is largely predictable and plain, none of the cast give anything close to a performance that's worth remembering. There aren't many, if any, scares either - not great for a film in this genre.
As for the onscreen talent, it's slim pickings... not even Jared Harris' late appearance could save things. If I had to pick a standout, away from Harris, it would be Sam Rockwell. The two youngest kids, Kyle Catlett and Kennedi Clements, aren't terrible in fairness.
Not one I'll be revisiting. Yawnful.
Updated for modern audiences, Poltergeist is a solid remake that delivers some frightful thrills. After moving to a new house that’s been built on a former cemetery the Bowen family comes under attack from supernatural forces. Sam Rockwell leads the cast and gives an impressive performance. Additionally, the director does a good job at creating atmosphere and building tension. And, the writers make some interesting changes that contemporizes the story. Though not as revolutionary as the original, Poltergeist is still a well-crafted and chilling horror film.
Not being a huge fan of the original, I don't compare this unfavourably to the first movie. But I do think they made a major mistake sticking so closely to the original storyline - a big part of what makes ghost stories enjoyable is the mystery, but if you know where this film is going from the start, you're robbed of that. But Sam Rockwell is terrific as always and I liked Jared Harris's character a lot.
Worst remake ever poor script over done cgi avoid it
Very not bad for an horror movie... At least we saw the beasts at the beginning :)
Terrible remake. The original is far better. Bad choice for Sam Rockwell !!!
No se me ocurre ninguna razón para ver esta blasfemia a la versión original.
Not bad. It's almost in the level of every horror picture of the last 5 years. In fact, I did enjoy it :)
worst horror movie i've ever watched to this day...
ive learned never to expect much from remakes. still, rockwell is my weakness.
Shout by PavuVIP 3BlockedParent2022-01-20T07:54:00Z
Either I saw too many horror movies and not that easily scared or this is a thriller/drama (I'll take the second choice). The cast tried to work with the script but it is what it is ... a reminder to watch the first one ;).